Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

[WorldWatcher]

Give us an actual case, why argue something made up, tell us of the doctor who did this so that we can see the circumstances, like if he actually dumped his patient.

How about you provide an actual case (so we can see the circumstances) where the admitting privileges and 30 mile rule would have made a difference in the treatment of a woman in the case of an abortion. Provide a case where a woman had complications and she was not able to get treatment at a hospital?

That line of questioning occurred in the transcripts and Justice Breyer didn't know of any not did the Texas Attorney General (Mr. Keller) provide any.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


For information...

Here is a link to Oral Arguments from the other day -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2015/15-274


>>>>

 

[Contumacious]

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

Money isn't much consolation to the dead. Simple isn't it?

Do the Texas procedure guarantees that no woman will die?

What is the % of deaths related to abortion procedures?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

Money isn't much consolation to the dead. Simple isn't it?

Do the Texas procedure guarantees that no woman will die?

What is the % of deaths related to abortion procedures?


.

Nope, just improves the chances that they won't.

Also if you want stats, feel free to look them up, I'm not your assistant.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What is the % of deaths related to abortion procedures?


.

Previously covered -->> Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

0.7 per 100,000 abortions
3.0 per 100,000 liposuctions
3.3 to 33.3 for colonoscopies


Yet the Texas laws apply only to abortions, which means that the reason for the law it to protect the health of women is a smoke screen. If the intent was to improve health care delivery and safety, then the same standards would apply to all doctors and clinics that perform minor outpatient type services.

The intent of the law visible to anyone with and honest bone in their body is to obstruct abortions, but they can't say that out loud as it automatically means the law as unconstitutional under the Casey ruling. They have to play a language game in hoping the Supreme Court won't notice.



>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

[
"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into their rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

Watch syriusly dodge the rhetorical question, a 2nd time.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

The answer to that is simply, Doctors who botch abortions and put a woman in a life threatening condition ought to go to the hospital and help save her life, after all, the Abortion Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient.

And what about Doctors who both a colonoscopy and put a patient in a life threatening condition- why shouldn't that physician go to the hospital to help save his or her life- after all the Colonoscopy Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient?

Give us an actual case, why argue something made up, tell us of the doctor who did this so that we can see the circumstances, like if he actually dumped his patient.

LOL- give us an actual case of a doctor in Texas who dumped his patient after an abortion- so we can see the circumstances.

Oh wait- you don't like to be held to the same standards as everyone else......

 

[Syriusly]

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

Why do Abortion doctors want to abandon their patients? Admitting Privileges will eliminate that problem. Abortion doctors should abide by the Hospitals rules.

Why do Colonoscopy doctors want to abandon their patients? Why do liposuction Doctors want to abandon their patients.

More importantly- why do you think that State Legislators should ignore what the medical profession says is actually unnecessary?

 

[Syriusly]

And what did the AMA and ACOG say?

There is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose a more stringent
requirement on facilities in which abortions are performed than it does on facilities
that perform other procedures that carry similar, or even greater, risks. Therefore,
there is no medically sound basis for H.B. 2’s privileges requirement

Who has the greater Medical expertise- doctors? Or State legislators?

The AMA and the the ACOG are not "doctors", they are organizations that lobby. They have doctors that are members, but that does not make them a "doctor".
.

They are organizations of medical professionals. The AMA is the largest profession of doctors in the United States- yet you and Texas dismiss what they say.

ACOG is the largest organization of doctors that deal with women's health issues- yet you and Texas dismiss what they say.

Of course you ignore what medical professional say- because this isn't about protecting women's health- this is about discriminating against women.

 

[Montrovant]

You ain't that brilliant are you, the following comment of yours is wrong, it looks like you pulled it out of your ass.


Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000

You really do have a hard time with numbers it seems. I simply took the numbers provided in my link, 1/3,000 and 1/30,000, and adjusted them to indicate how many per 100,000. 1 per 30,000 is 3 1/3 per 100,000. 1 per 3,000 is 33 1/3 per 100,000. The mistake here seems to be in your understanding.

Here, let me break down a bit of it for you. If there is one death in every 30,000 colonoscopies, there would be 2 deaths in every 60,000 colonoscopies, 3 deaths in every 90,000 colonoscopies, and finally 3.333333.... deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies. I rounded the 1/3 decimal to simply .3.

Do you understand now?

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies. It simply states that the study covers 35 years of colonoscopies. Myself, I would quote the actual study. Your link makes the case that the risk of death or complications, is rare.

Secondary sources that are simply articles really suck, we can go back and forth forever on what the article states. Your articles is making the case that the risks from a colonoscopy is low, but you have an agenda so you want the numbers to reflect something else.

The real answer is in the actual study which you have not linked to. If you want to argue a study, just quote the study, not an article that states what the writer wishes us to believe.

I still say your numbers are not in your link. Use the study, not an editorial about the study.

As WorldWatcher pointed out, the link does state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies. The numbers given are 1/3,000 to 1/30,000. I've provided those numbers, I've quoted those numbers from the article, yet somehow you think they do not exist.

You talk about my agenda, but all I have done it provide numbers and compare them to abortions. I also linked to liposuction deaths, but for some reason you have ignored those numbers. Perhaps you are the one promoting an agenda, ignoring the numbers that are clearly shown and arguing things I have not said or pretending that adjusting the ratio to reflect the per 100,000 number is somehow mistaken.

Look, just skip colonoscopies. I have agreed that because of the long time period involved, the numbers are questionable regarding modern day colonoscopies. How about the risk of death from liposuction? Those numbers were greater than the numbers in the link you provided on abortions. Or we could look at other procedures where a doctor does not need hospital admitting privileges, or where the clinics in which the procedures occur are not required to conform to Ambulatory Care facility standards. The big question is why these other types of procedures do not require the same standards as abortions? It seems clear that it is because of an anti-abortion agenda.

I can accept people arguing for or against abortion. I see nothing wrong with that. This kind of dishonest attempt to sneak abortion restrictions into law, on the other hand, I disagree with. When multiple large medical organizations argue that the regulations serve no purpose, when the proponents of the regulations cannot provide evidence that the regulations will actually help, why would anyone agree with such regulations other than because they want to limit abortions?

 

[Contumacious]

What is the % of deaths related to abortion procedures?


.

Previously covered -->> Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

0.7 per 100,000 abortions
3.0 per 100,000 liposuctions
3.3 to 33.3 for colonoscopies


Yet the Texas laws apply only to abortions, which means that the reason for the law it to protect the health of women is a smoke screen. If the intent was to improve health care delivery and safety, then the same standards would apply to all doctors and clinics that perform minor outpatient type services.

The intent of the law visible to anyone with and honest bone in their body is to obstruct abortions, but they can't say that out loud as it automatically means the law as unconstitutional under the Casey ruling. They have to play a language game in hoping the Supreme Court won't notice.



>>>>

0.7 per 100,000 abortions

and oktexas correctly states that there is NO guarantee that having an abortion in Texas using the new procedures will guarantee a woman's safety.

So clearly, the intent of Texas law is to prevent women from having abortions.


.

 

[elektra]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

A 30,000th of 1? That is what 1/30,000 is. Now define 1, is it referring to all colonoscopies? what is 1/30,000 of a 100,000, what is 1/30,000 of all colonoscopies from 1966 to 2001 is it really the same?

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

Rarely, but what does that mean exactly? A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicineprovided some.
When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

That is death occurred in .003 percent of all colonoscopies from the period of 1966 to 2001, are you arguing that there were only 100,000 colonoscopies performed in 35 years?

 

[elektra]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

Why cherry pick the link? Yes how can I read your cherry picked portion any other way?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

A 30,000th of 1? That is what 1/30,000 is. Now define 1, is it referring to all colonoscopies? what is 1/30,000 of a 100,000, what is 1/30,000 of all colonoscopies from:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

Rarely, but what does that mean exactly? A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicineprovided some.
When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

That is death occurred in .003 percent of all colonoscopies from the period of 1966 to 2001, are you arguing that there were only 100,000 colonoscopies performed in 35 years?

Either you don't understand how rates of occurrence are listed, or your are being purposely obtuse.


A rate of 1/30,000 means one death per 30,000 colonoscopies not "a 30,000th of 1".


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why cherry pick the link? Yes how can I read your cherry picked portion any other way?

Psst...

I wasn't "cherry picking the link". You made a claim about another posters link, I just showed you were wrong. It did state what you said it didn't state.


>>>>

 

[elektra]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

A 30,000th of 1? That is what 1/30,000 is. Now define 1, is it referring to all colonoscopies? what is 1/30,000 of a 100,000, what is 1/30,000 of all colonoscopies from:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

Rarely, but what does that mean exactly? A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicineprovided some.
When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

That is death occurred in .003 percent of all colonoscopies from the period of 1966 to 2001, are you arguing that there were only 100,000 colonoscopies performed in 35 years?

Either you don't understand how rates of occurrence are listed, or your are being purposely obtuse.


A rate of 1/30,000 means one death per 30,000 colonoscopies not "a 30,000th of 1".


>>>>

Then quote the whole statement, .003 of 100,000 is different than .003 of 200,000,000 million, is it not?

 

[elektra]

Psst...

I wasn't "cherry picking the link". You made a claim about another posters link, I just showed you were wrong. It did state what you said it didn't state.


>>>>

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


Rarely, but what does that mean exactly? A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicineprovided some.

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.

• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then quote the whole statement, .003 of 100,000 is different than .003 of 200,000,000 million, is it not?

You really don't understand that .003% is not saying .003 of 100,000 do you.

The "%" indicates percent of "of 100" or "0.003 per 100". Not .003 of 100,000.

1/30,000 as a ratio is 1 divided by 30,000 which is 0.00003333333. To covert .00003333 to a percent multiply to 100 which is ".003333" rounded that is .003%.

With rounding of the repeading decimal, that means 1/30,000 = .003%"

.003 of 100,000 does not equal 1 of 30,000.

However .003% of 100,000 does equal the ratio 1 of 30,000 (expressed as 1/30,000) when applying the normal rounding principal of keeping the least significant digit if the next number is less than 5. (As opposed to rounding the least significant digit up if the next number is 5 or greater.)


*****************************************

Therefore...

"Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies." is equal in value (generally speaking) to "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

What is the % of deaths related to abortion procedures?


.

Previously covered -->> Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

0.7 per 100,000 abortions
3.0 per 100,000 liposuctions
3.3 to 33.3 for colonoscopies


Yet the Texas laws apply only to abortions, which means that the reason for the law it to protect the health of women is a smoke screen. If the intent was to improve health care delivery and safety, then the same standards would apply to all doctors and clinics that perform minor outpatient type services.

The intent of the law visible to anyone with and honest bone in their body is to obstruct abortions, but they can't say that out loud as it automatically means the law as unconstitutional under the Casey ruling. They have to play a language game in hoping the Supreme Court won't notice.



>>>>

What Elektra will not ever do is actually address this inconsistency- why women facing a lower risk of fatalities with complications for abortions require more protection than men and women undergoing colonoscopies require.

0.7 per 100,000 abortions
3.0 per 100,000 liposuctions
3.3 to 33.3 for colonoscopies


Yet the Texas laws apply only to abortions, which means that the reason for the law it to protect the health of women is a smoke screen. If the intent was to improve health care delivery and safety, then the same standards would apply to all doctors and clinics that perform minor outpatient type services.

The intent of the law visible to anyone with and honest bone in their body is to obstruct abortions, but they can't say that out loud as it automatically means the law as unconstitutional under the Casey ruling. They have to play a language game in hoping the Supreme Court won't notice.

 

[elektra]

Then quote the whole statement, .003 of 100,000 is different than .003 of 200,000,000 million, is it not?

You really don't understand that .003% is not saying .003 of 100,000 do you.

The "%" indicates percent of "of 100" or "0.003 per 100". Not .003 of 100,000.

1/30,000 as a ratio is 1 divided by 30,000 which is 0.00003333333. To covert .00003333 to a percent multiply to 100 which is ".003333" rounded that is .003%.

With rounding of the repeading decimal, that means 1/30,000 = .003%"

.003 of 100,000 does not equal 1 of 30,000.

However .003% of 100,000 does equal the ratio 1 of 30,000 (expressed as 1/30,000) when applying the normal rounding principal of keeping the least significant digit if the next number is less than 5. (As opposed to rounding the least significant digit up if the next number is 5 or greater.)


*****************************************

Therefore...

"Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies." is equal in value (generally speaking) to "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."


>>>>

From the period of 1966 to 2001, which is how many millions?

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

From the period of 1966 to 2001, which is how many millions?

1. Who cares? You said the link didn't provide information on death rates and it did, you were wrong.

2. Second, I didn't spend a lot of time researching it, but the link below cites 14,200,000 colonoscopies in 2002. Call it 10,000,000 (just be conservative) per year that's about 350,000,000 over the 35 year period. The second link below shows abortion statistics, that about 900,000 per year (but we'll round to the high side and call it 1,000,000). Over the same 35 year period that would be 35,000,000 abortions.

Logical Statements:
a. There are 10 times MORE colonoscopies per year than abortions.
b. Colonoscopies have a higher mortality rate than abortions.
c. Using Montrovant's previously supplied reference you get .7 per 100,000 or 2450 deaths from 35,000,000 abortions over that period.
d. Using Montrovant's previously supplied reference you get 3.3 per 100,000 to 33.3 per 100,000 you have between 11,550 to 116,550 deaths from 350,000,000 colonoscopies for that period.

Conclusion:
Colonoscopies are 4.7 to 47.5 times MORE dangerous than abortions with abortions being safer in early stages of pregnancies (refer to oral arguments at the SCOTUS), and yet some are trying to convince us the Texas law is about improving medical care for women. Horse shit, if it was about improving medical care then the admitting privileges, 30 mile limit, and surgery facilities would be required for all doctors and clinics that perform out of hospital surgery procedures. Yet they are not, the law targets only abortion providers.​

How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. - PubMed - NCBI
Abortion statistics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


>>>>